Quality human environment and the enjoyment of basic human rights are inextricably linked.

Mans
natural and manmade environments are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic
human rights. As will be shown, Ravar's violation of its international obligations to protect the
environment also constituted a breach of its international obligation to respect and ensure the right
to life and to undertake steps to realize the rights to an adequate standard of living, health, and
healthy environment.

A healthy environment is necessary for human and animal life to survive. Drinkable water,
breathable air, and edible food are some of the resources that are necessary for life to continue.
Yet at the same time, people cannot maintain a desirable standard of living without the
consumption of natural resources, which causes damage to the environment. Human activity that is
harmful to the environment can cause public health crises, render areas uninhabitable, and
otherwise reduce standards of living on a societal or global scale. When people protect the
environment, they are protecting themselves and their future as well.

I. RAVAR VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW.

Ravar breached its international obligations under the Khutan mountain range treaty and
environmental law principles that have attained the status of international customary law.

RAVAR BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE KTMR TREATY

ART. 10-- shared national resources

UN charter on Environmental law guidelines and principles on shared national resources:
Principle 1
It is necessary for States to co-operate in the field of the environment concerning the conservation
and harmonious utilization of natural resources shared by two or more States. Accordingly, it is
necessary that consistent with the concept of equitable utilization of shared natural resources,
States co-operate with a view to controlling, preventing, reducing or eliminating adverse
environmental effects which may result from the utilization of such resources. Such co-operation is
to take place on an equal footing and taking into account the sovereignty, rights and interests of the
States concerned.
Principle 3
1. States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of
international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own
environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or
control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction.

2. The principles set forth in paragraph I, as well as the other principles entitled in this document,
apply to shared natural resources.
3. Accordingly, it is necessary for each state to avoid to the maximum extent possible and to reduce
to the minimum extent possible the adverse environmental effects beyond its jurisdiction of the
utilization of a shared natural resource so as to protect the environment, in particular when such
utilization might
(a)
(b)
(c)
cause damage to the environment which could have repercussions on the utilization of the
resource by another sharing State;
threaten the conservation of a shared renewable resource: endanger the health of the population of
another State.
Without prejudice to the generality of the above principle, it should be interpreted taking
into account, where appropriate, the practical capabilities of States sharing the natural resource.
Principle 13
It is necessary for States, when considering, under their domestic environmental policy, the
permissibility of domestic activities, to take into account the potential adverse environmental effects
arising out of the utilizations of shared natural resources, without discrimination as to whether the
effects would occur within their jurisdiction or outside it.
--> failure of tratvia to keep the coals in a well-ventilated place (pre-cautionary measures)
Principle 4
States should make environmental assessment before engaging in any activity with respect to a
shared natural resource which may create a risk of significantly affecting the environment of
another State or States sharing that resource. (see definition of significantly below)
--> ravar made no assessment whatsoever and the blatant disregard of the ILS report on the
negative impact of mining related activities in contravention of ravar's obligation under art 14

Under the UNFCC

States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of
international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own
environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within
their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas
beyond the limits of national jurisdiction
Art. 3---The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the
causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should
be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost. To achieve this,
such policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be
comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and

adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried
out cooperatively by interested Parties.
Art 4--- (f) Take climate change considerations into account, to the extent feasible, in their relevant
social, economic and environmental policies and actions, and employ appropriate methods, for
example impact assessments, formulated and determined nationally, with a view to minimizing
adverse effects on the economy, on public health and on the quality of
the environment, of projects or measures undertaken by them to mitigate or adapt to climate
change;
(g) Promote and cooperate in scientific, technological, technical, socio-economic and other
research, systematic observation and development of data archives related to the climate system
and intended to further the understanding and to reduce or eliminate the remaining uncertainties
regarding the causes, effects, magnitude and timing of climate change and the economic and
social consequences of various response strategies;

2. The developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex I commit themselves
specifically as provided for in the following:
1
(a) EachofthesePartiesshalladoptnational policiesandtakecorresponding measures on the
mitigation of climate change, by limiting its anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and
protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs. These policies and measures
will demonstrate that developed countries are taking the lead in modifying longer-term trends in
anthropogenic emissions consistent with the objective of the Convention, recognizing that the
return by the end of the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol would contribute to
such modification, and taking into account the differences in these Parties starting points and
approaches, economic structures and resource bases, the need to maintain strong and sustainable
economic growth, available technologies and other individual circumstances, as well as the need
for equitable and appropriate contributions by each of these Parties to the global effort regarding
that objective. These Parties may implement such
policies and measures jointly with other Parties and may assist other Parties in contributing
to the achievement of the objective of the Convention and, in particular, that of this subparagraph;
-----differentiation of developing and developed countries

Under the stockholm declaration-Principle 6

The discharge of toxic substances or of other substances and the release of heat, in such
quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them harmless,
must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is not inflicted upon
ecosystems. The just struggle of the peoples of ill countries against pollution should be supported.
Principle 7

States shall take all possible steps to prevent pollution of the seas by substances that are liable to
create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or
to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.

Under the convention on long range transboundary pollution

(b) "long-range transboundary air pollution" means air
pollution whose physical origin is situated wholly or in
part within the area under the national jurisdiction of
one State and which has adverse
effects in the area under the jurisdiction of another
State at such a distance that it is not generally
possible to distinguish the contribution of individual
emission sources or groups of sources.
Trail smilters case
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The duty to protect other states against harmful acts by individuals from
within its jurisdiction at all times is the responsibility of a state.

Held. Yes. It is the responsibility of the State to protect other states against harmful act by
individuals from within its jurisdiction at all times. No state has the right to use or permit the use of
the territory in a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the
properties or persons therein as stipulated under the United States (P) laws and the principles of
international law.
By looking at the facts contained in this case, the arbitration held that Canada (D) is responsible in
international law for the conduct of the Trail Smelter Company. Hence, the onus lies on the
Canadian government (D) to see to it that Trail Smelters conduct should be in line with the
obligations of Canada (D) as it has been confirmed by International law. The Trail Smelter
Company will therefore be required from causing any damage through fumes as long as the
present conditions of air pollution exist in Washington.
So, in pursuant of the Article III of the convention existing between the two nations, the indemnity
for damages should be determined by both governments. Finally, a regime or measure of control
shall be applied to the operations of the smelter since it is probable in the opinion of the tribunal
that damage may occur in the future from the operations of the smelter unless they are curtailed.

Discussion. Responsibility for pollution of the sea or the existence of a duty to desist from polluting
the sea has never been laid at the feet of any country by any international tribunal. Although

regulation of pollution is just commencing, it must ensure that there is equilibrium against freedom
of the seas guaranteed under general and long established rules of international law.
RAVAR VIOLATED ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PRINCIPLES UNDER CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
a. Ravar violated the principle of Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas, a customary norm.
The principle of Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas, as embodied in many international
instruments and upheld in cases such as the Trail Smelter arbitration and Corfu Channel Case,
prohibits States from conducting or permitting activities within their territories without regard for the
rights of other States or for the protection of the environment. In a similar vein, general principles of
international law impose obligations on States to prevent transboundary pollution and to cooperate
in matters concerning environmental protection. These instruments show State practice and
evidence that the principle is held as legally binding.

b. Ravar violated its duty to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment and to monitor the
operation of CIC and other chemical factories in accordance with the precautionary approach.
International instruments on environmental protection created since the 1980s have long
compelled State parties to proceed on the basis of a precautionary approach in recognition of
the States duty to protect the environment from harm or prospective harm despite the lack of
scientific certainty.
c. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a customary norm.
EIA developed along with the application of the precautionary principle.It is a systematic
process that examines the consequences of development actions in advance. It produces a written
statement to be used as a guide to decision-making, with several related functions: First, it should
provide decision-makers with information on the environmental consequences of proposed
activities, programs or policies; Second, it requires that decisions are influenced by the information
gathered; And, third, it provides a mechanism for ensuring the participation of potentially affected
persons in the decision- making process.
The duty to assess environmental impacts has become part of customary law with more than 150
countries implementing an environmental assessment program.This has also been reinforced
through municipal judicial decisions. In addition to domestic EIA, States now also recognize the
requirement of Transboundary EIA as customary international law.

-sufficient state practice

Evidence from state practice supports the view that the conduct of an appropriate EIA or an
equivalent mechanism will, in most cases, be an important means of discharging the due diligence
obligations imposed on States.Numerous treatises and highly publicized scholars state that
Transboundary EIA forms part of the domestic environmental law of nations, including almost all
developed and many developing countries.

-coupled with opinio juris

Environmental impact assessment procedures have been incorporated and required in a
very large number of national legal systems, international conventions and various non-binding
international instruments.States are also increasingly recognized to be under a general obligation
to assess their activities, regardless of where those impacts or activities are located.. The ICJ
recognizes EIA as a practice that has become an obligation under general international law. This
pronouncement further proves the legally binding nature of the duty to conduct EIA.
D. Ravar failed to take measures to prevent environmental degradation.
When ravar acquired knowledge of the possible harm of Mining anthracite coals as pointed
out by the ILS, it should have immediately undertaken an investigation, as well as suspended or
imposed stricter regulations on The same.

II. Ravar's FAILURE TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN

RIGHTS.
A. IT VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW TO RESPECT AND
ENSURE THE RIGHT TO LIFE.
a. The right to life is protected under international law.
i. Ravar has a treaty obligation to respect and ensure the right to life under Article 6 of the
ICCPR.
ii. The protection of the right to life is a customary norm and a general principle of
international law.
B. Ravar VIOLATED ITS DUTY TO UNDERTAKE STEPS TO REALIZE THE RIGHT TO AN
ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING AND THE RIGHT TO HEALTH UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW.
a. The right to an adequate standard of living and the right to health are protected under
international law.
i. Ravar has a treaty obligation to undertake steps to realize the right to an adequate standard of
living and the right to health under Articles 11 and 12 of the ICESCR.

i.

b. Failure to prevent substantial pollution of the Bay and its marine resources violates the
right to life.
b. RAVAR violated these rights when it allowed Tratvia to store the coals in an open area
without any source of ventilation and without adequate and effective environmental
safeguards.
C. Ravar VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT AND THE RIGHT TO
THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER
INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMARY LAW.
a. The right to a healthy environment is an international customary norm.
There is sufficient state practice.

ii. Existing state practice is coupled with opinio juris.

The ICJ stated that the States consent to and attitude towards the text of a resolution
evidence opinio juris. The abovementioned covenants and declarations prove that there is
already an expectation of compliance among States which, together with ensuing
practice,73 establishes that the right to a healthy environment is already a customary norm.
b. The right to use and enjoyment of property is protected under international customary
law.
The right to own property and the correlative right not to be deprived arbitrarily of such are
entrenched international human rights found in many global instruments.

III. THE STATE OF Ravar INCURRED STATE RESPONSIBILITY WHEN IT COMMITTED

INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS.
Under Article 1 of the Article of State Responsibility, every internationally
wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State. Such State is
then put under obligation to cease the commission of the internationally wrongful act if it is
continuing; to offer assurances and guarantees of non-repetition; and to offer full
reparations for injuries caused by the wrongful act.